Report on Free Software Free Society, 2008.

[...]

But this revolution is being threatened by monopolists who wish to control the generation and dissemination of knowledge. Venkatesh Hariharan, Eben, Mishi and Marco gave presentations on the current state of that stupid idea called software patents.

Glyn Moody says more on the same subject, with emphasis on so-called standards (which only the wealthy are permitted to support and comply with).

For if anything other than royalty-free terms are adopted, open source is effectively locked out – something that Microsoft knows full well, which is why it has pushed for “Reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing” (RAND). At first sight, this appears fair enough – after all, if it is non-discriminatory, what’s not to like?

But the point is that it is not possible for free software programs to support even nominal licensing fees, since the unlimited, unchecked distribution of code makes it impossible to monitor how much should be paid.

This has made its stockholders particularly partisan, as its stock has risen and fallen in synchrony with its fortunes in court, and its detractors particularly irate, because they view Rambus not only as a patent troll, but also as one that has gamed the standards development process during the creation of a universally adopted SDRAM memory standard. Hundreds of millions, and perhaps billions, of dollars of royalties are at stake.

Software Patents Can’t Mix with Freedom

Apple’s software patents definitely harm GNU/Linux [1, 2] and it turns out that a GPL violator known as VMware is doing the same thing. This might not be deliberate, but it’s having the same effect. Despite the fact that VMware is a fairly new member of the Linux Foundation, this offers no peace of mind. VMware is now led by a Microsoft lackey [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], who fought Microsoft’s rivals in all sort of nasty ways.

On the kernel page a few weeks ago, we took a look at KSM, a technique to reduce memory usage by sharing identical pages. Currently proposed for inclusion in the mainline kernel, KSM implements a potentially useful—but not particularly new—mechanism. Unfortunately, before it can be examined on its technical merits, it may run afoul of what is essentially a political problem: software patents.

A report from LWN.net suggests that there may be a patent problem with KSM, a memory management technology that is a candidate for inclusion in a future version of Linux. KSM attempts to extend the idea of sharing memory pages between processes from just managing shared libraries, to any identical memory pages, such as running multiple copies of the same program, or virtualised guest operating systems.

The threat affects KVM, which is now owned by Red Hat, the largest contributor to Linux. Quoting from the above, “The folks behind the KSM project are some of the kvm hackers from Qumranet—which is now part of Red Hat.”

“The idea is to create a defensive patent shield or no-fly zone around Linux,” says Keith Bergelt, the chief executive officer of Open Invention Network, the consortium launching the site. The core members of that group, formed in 2005, are IBM, NEC, Novell NOVL, Philips, Red Hat RHT and Sony.

We previously wrote about this initiative in [1, 2, 3, 4]. More could be done to topple the broken system rather than abide by and obey its rules. █

“Fighting patents one by one will never eliminate the danger of software patents, any more than swatting mosquitoes will eliminate malaria.”

–Richard Stallman

Share this post:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

I clearly understand Andy to believe Rambus is a patent troll after reading his blog yesterday. What is lacking is any evidence, as a a matter of fact the overwhelming evidence is to the contrary so one wonders about the motivation behind such statements. I am all for a healthy discussion but maybe we should add full disclosure rules for the debaters? I am an investor in Rambus.

I realize that Andy has an axe (or client) to grind but would appreciate more balanced “reporting”. He is of course entitled to his opinion but there’s another side to the story. Where Andy believes that (contrary to every single high court that has heard these cases) that Rambus acted improperly in front of JEDEC there are other (myself included) who believe that Rambus has contributed significantly to technological development in all computing devices. It is not without reason the investors received the highest IEEE awards. This whole saga reads better than a Grisham novel as it is truly a story of greed and David v Goliath. http://rambus.org/story/ gives a factual record.

Andy and all other misinformed individuals should internalize Judge Prost’s opinion in the recent Qualcomm v. Broadcom CAFC ruling that cites the previous ruling made by Judge Rader in 2003:

“After considering evidence regarding the JEDEC members’ understanding of the JEDEC policy, this court determined that “Rambus’s duty to disclose extended only to claims in patents or applications that reasonably might be necessary to practice the standard.” Id. at 1100. Applying that rationale to the claims at issue and the evidence in the case, it stated that “[t]he record shows that Rambus’s claimed technology did not fall within the JEDEC disclosure duty.” Id. at 1104. Accordingly, this court concluded that “substantial evidence does not support the jury’s verdict that Rambus breached its duties under the EIA/JEDEC policy.” (Judge Prost, CAFC)

How could Rambus be guilty of not disclosing patents and patent applications that they did not posses while members of JEDEC?

The whole Rambus “JEDEC misconduct” narrative has no bearing with reality and was propagated by a convicted pact of patent pirates.

Where is the EVIDENCE of that? The EU patent rules are very different from USPTO so let’s compare apples to apples.

Judge Prost’s opinion in the recent Qualcomm v. Broadcom CAFC ruling:

“After considering evidence regarding the JEDEC members’ understanding of the JEDEC policy, this court determined that “Rambus’s duty to disclose extended only to claims in patents or applications that reasonably might be necessary to practice the standard.” Id. at 1100. Applying that rationale to the claims at issue and the evidence in the case, it stated that “[t]he record shows that Rambus’s claimed technology did not fall within the JEDEC disclosure duty.” Id. at 1104. Accordingly, this court concluded that “substantial evidence does not support the jury’s verdict that Rambus breached its duties under the EIA/JEDEC policy.”

The “ambush” was made by the memory manufacturing cartel, actually in full daylight. The same companies found quilty by the DOJ and ordered to pay close to $1b in fines and having key employees go to jail.

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION Complaint Counsel have failed to sustain their burden
of proof with respect all three of the violations alleged in the Complaint.
First, the evidence at trial establishes that Complaint Counsel failed to
prove the facts they alleged in the Complaint. Second, an analysis of the
legal theories advanced by Complaint Counsel demonstrates that there is no
legal basis for finding a violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commssion Act, either as based on other antitrust laws or solely as an unfair
method of competition.
Third, an application of the facts established at trial to the legal theories
asserted leads to the conclusion that Complaint Counsel have failed to prove
their case. The evidentiary record demonstrates that: (1) the EINJEDEC patent
policy encouraged the early, voluntary disclosure of essential patents and
Respondent did not violate this policy; (2) the case law upon which Complaint
Counsel rely to impose antitrust liability is clearly distinguishable on the
facts of this case; (3) Respondent s conduct did not amount to deception and
did not violate any “extrinsic duties ” such as a duty of good faith to
disclose relevant patent information; (4) Respondent did not have any
undisclosed patents or patent applications during the time that it was a
JEDEC member that it was obligated to disclose; (5) amendments to broaden
Respondent’s patent applications while a member of JEDEC were not improper ,
either as a matter of law or fact; (6) by having a legitimate business
justification for its actions, Respondent did not engage in exclusionary
conduct; (7) Respondent did not intentionally mislead JEDEC by knowingly
violating a JEDEC disclosure rule; (8) there is no causal link between JEDEC
standardization and Respondent’s acquisition of monopoly power; (9) members
of JEDEC did not rely on any alleged omission or misrepresentation by
Respondent and, if they had, such reliance would not have been reasonable;
(10) the challenged conduct did not result in anticompetitive effects, as
Complaint Counsel did not demonstrate that there were viable alternatives to
Respondent’s superior technologies; (11) the challenged conduct did not
result in anti competitive effects as the challenged conduct did not result
in higher prices to consumers; and (12) JEDEC is not locked in to using
Respondent’s technologies in its current standardization efforts. For these
reasons, Complaint Counsel have failed to sustain their burden to establish
liability for the violations alleged. Accordingly, the Complaint is
DISMISSED.

SUMMARY OF LIABILITY For the above stated reasons, Complaint
Counsel, the party with the burden of proof, have failed to establish the
elements necessary for finding liability on Counts , II and III of the
Complaint. A review of the three violations alleged in the Complaint shows
that although Respondent is in possession of monopoly power in the relevant
markets, Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that Respondent engaged
in a pattern of exclusionary, anticompetitive conduct which subverted an open
standards process, or that Respondent utilized such conduct to capture an
unlawfl monopoly in the technology-related markets. Analyzing the challenged
conduct under established principles of economics and antitrust law and
utilizing the preponderance of evidence standard, Complaint Counsel have not
proven the elements necessary to support a finding ofliability.

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Jurisdiction and Burden of Proof 1. Pursuant to
Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 US. c. ~ 45, the Commssion has jurisdiction over
the subject matter of this proceeding and over Respondent, Rambus Inc. 2.
Respondent is organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of
the laws of the state of Delaware, with its offce and principal place of
business located at 4440 EI Camino Road Real, Los Altos, California 94022. 3.
Respondent is a corporation, as “corporation” is defined in Section 4 of the
Federal Trade Commssion Act, 15 US. c. ~ 44. 329 4. Respondent’ s acts and
practices, including the acts and practices alleged in the Complaint, are in
or afect commerce as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the Federal Trade
Commssion Act, 15 US. C. ~ 44. 5. Pursuant to ~ 3. 43 (a) of the Federal
Trade Commssion s Rules of Practice, Complaint Counsel bear the burden of
proof of establishing each element of the violations alleged in the Complaint
by a preponderance of the evidence. The Relevant Markets and Monopoly Power
6. The relevant geographic market for purposes of determning the possession
of monopoly power in this case is the world. 7. The relevant product markets
at issue in this proceeding involve technologies that are incorporated in
DRAs for use in current and recent generation personal computers and other
electronic memory devices. Each market consists of a type of technology that
addresses a specific aspect of memory design and operation. The four relevant
product markets are: (1) the latency technology market; (2) the burst length
technology market; (3) the data acceleration technology market; and (4) the
clock synchronization technology market. In addition, there is a cluster
market of synchronous DRA technologies. 8. Complaint Counsel have
demonstrated that Respondent has acquired monopoly power in the relevant
markets. However, Complaint Counsel have not demonstrated that Respondent’s
acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power was unlawfl. No Pattern of
Anticompetitive Acts and Practices 9. Complaint Counsel have failed to
demonstrate that Respondent s challenged conduct amounted to a pattern of
anticompetitive acts and practices. 330 10. Complaint Counsel’ s legal
theory, i. , that Respondent’s challenged conduct violated Section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commssion Act, which proscribes “unfair methods of competition
” lacks a reasonable basis in law. 11. Complaint Counsel have failed to
demonstrate that the duties upon which they base their challenge are clear
and unambiguous. 12. The evidence presented at trial does not provide a
factual basis for finding a pattern of anticompetitive acts and practices.
13. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that amendments to broaden
patent applications are improper, either under patent law or EIA/JEDEC rules.
No Exclusionary Conduct 14. Respondent has demonstrated that there were
legitimate business justifications for the conduct challenged by Complaint
Counsel. Maintaining the confdentiality of the proprietary information
contained in its patent applications clearly related to a legitimate and
normal business purpose and thus precludes a finding of exclusionary conduct
in this case. 15. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that mere
participation in a standard setting organization, without more, can form the
basis for excluding a member s legitimate right to protect its trade secrets
from disclosure. 16. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that
Respondent engaged in exclusionary conduct for reasons extrinsic to the
antitrust laws. No Intent 17. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate
that Respondent intended to mislead or 331 deceive JEDEC. 18. Complaint
Counsel have failed to demonstrate that Respondent s challenged conduct rises
to a level where intent can be inferred. 19. Evidence in the record indicates
that Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that the intent element has
been met. No Causation 20. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate a
causal link between JEDEC standardization and Respondent s acquisition of
monopoly power. 21. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that
Respondent acquired monopoly power by virtue of JEDEC standard setting. 22.
The evidence demonstrates that Respondent acquired monopoly power as a result
of its superior technology and Intel’ s choice ofRambus s technology. 23. To
the extent that Complaint Counsel’ s Section 5 cause of action is based upon
a breach of duty to disclose under JEDEC’s rules , Complaint Counsel have
failed to demonstrate that Respondent’s omissions or misrepresentations were
relied upon by JEDEC or that such reliance was reasonable. No Anticompetitive
Effects 24. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that there were
viable alternatives to Respondent’ s technologies. 25. Complaint Counsel’ s
economic expert failed to demonstrate that “equal or superior 332
alternatives were excluded by Respondent’ s challenged conduct. 26. Under the
economic theory of “revealed preference ” the evidence demonstrates that even
if Respondent had made the additional disclosures alleged to have been
required, rational manufacturers and a rational JEDEC would have selected
Respondent’ s technologies because the proposed alternatives were inferior.
27. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that Respondent’s
challenged conduct resulted in higher prices to the consumer. 28. The
evidence indicates that Respondent’s royalty rates are reasonable. 29. The
evidence indicates that Respondent’s royalty rates are nondiscriminatory.
JEDEC Is Not Locked In To Respondent’ s Technologies 30. The evidence
indicates that DRA manufacturers were not locked in to using Respondent’ s
technologies at any point from 1990 to the present. 31. JEDECs continued
use of Respondent’ s technologies is due to the fact that Rambus
technologies are superior in cost/performance terms to any alternatives,
despite Rambus s royalty rates. 333 ORDER Accordingly, Complaint Counsel
having failed to sustain its burden of establishing liability for the
violations alleged, the Complaint is DISMISSED. Chief Administrative Law
Judge February 23 , 2004 Washington, D. C. 334

When a company willfully infringes valid, enforceable patents (IP) they are committing patent piracy, just like when clothing/fashion companies copy with out authorization the design/trademark of their competitors, they are infringing their copyright and are labeled as pirates.

It was been proven in a court of law that members of the DRAM cartel knew of Rambus patents which were deemed to be valid, enforceable and infringed thus calling their deliberate infringement as patent piracy is pretty accurate.

If you prefer you can call them patent/IP thieves…

But back to my previous point, per Judge Prost’s ruling, How could Rambus be guilty of not disclosing patents and patent applications that they did not posses while members of JEDEC?

The objections from the Rambus shareholders are funny. They are at the same moment claiming that Rambus did not break JEDEC rules since they did not have the patent by then and that that the JEDEC group did a hostile overtake of Rambus technology.

At the end of the day it is pretty simple…both these ideas can not be true at the same time. Either Rambus had patents in the area that they should have disclosed or they did not have patents and have been stealing the work of JEDEC members.

What Rambus have been doing is the essence of a patent troll ambush no matter if Rambus is a troll or not normally. What remains to be seen if the laws are written well enough to nail Rambus for their behavior. There is no contradiction between that Rambus might walk free due to lack of evidence and that they in reality might be guilty of the charges.

Staff of the EPO is given yet more reasons to protest tomorrow at the British Consulate, for the so-called 'President' of the EPO reminds everyone of the very raison d'être for the protest -- a vain disregard for the rule of law

The European Patent Office (EPO) President, Benoît Battistelli, reportedly started threatening -- as before -- staff that decides to exercise the right to assemble and protest against abuses, including the abuses of President Battistelli himself

A protest in Munich in less than 6 days will target Mr. Sean Dennehey, who has helped Battistelli cover up his abuses and crush legitimate critics, whom he deemed illegal opposition as if the EPO is an authoritarian regime as opposed to a public service which taxpayers are reluctantly (but forcibly) funding